This article is exclusively
for Heatmap Plus subscribers.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.

Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
How an embattled energy storage project in Acton, California, is threatening faster federal permits.

One hour north of Los Angeles, the small town of Acton is experiencing a battery energy storage buildout — and quickly becoming the must-watch frontline in the backlash against lithium-ion energy storage systems. The flashpoint: wildfires.
Like many parts of California, Acton has hot summers with heavy winds, putting it at elevated risk of the kind blaze that makes national headlines. Battery storage fires, while rare, are a unique threat, with relatively little data available about them to help regulators or the public understand the risk. People in Acton wondered: Would they really be safe if a wildfire engulfed a battery storage site, or if a battery failure sparked a new conflagration?
When L.A. County blessed the first battery energy storage system project in Acton last year, developers and local fire officials said they were doing everything in their power to ensure the batteries would meet safety standards. Residents were far from convinced.
“This will turn our community into industrial hell and it’ll erase us from the face of the Earth,” Jacqueline Ayer, a member of Acton’s town council, told me. Ayer is helping lead the local fight against the projects.
I’ve now spent more than a month researching the fight in Acton. In the process, I’ve learned how much — or little — we know about when battery energy storage and wildfires mix. We’ll get to that later in this story. To be honest, debunking battery fire risk wasn’t why I spent a month on Acton. It was what happened when the fears took hold.
Feeling they’d been failed by both the regulatory approval process and the court system, the Acton project’s opponents turned to their representative in Washington, House Republican Mike Garcia. Though Garcia can’t do anything to stop this particular project, he can severely hinder future ones: As Heatmap can exclusively report, after lobbying from Acton, Garcia inserted language into the annual funding bill for the Department of Energy that would block it from implementing a new rule designed to expedite permits for federally funded battery projects.
“What we’re hoping is that [with Garcia] being at the federal level, he’ll shed some light to the people at the top,” said Ruthie Brock of the activist group Acton Takes Action, “because if the top becomes informed, it’ll trickle down to local governments.”
This is why the Acton fight is so important — it demonstrates the risk of failing to obtain community buy-in, which can ricochet in ways no one intended. The political and media environments are quick to sensationalize the downsides of renewable energy, creating a tinderbox atmosphere in which small local fights can quickly become national ones.
On some level, a fight over battery fires going national was inevitable. Across the country, from New York to Washington state, communities are revolting against battery energy storage sites coming to their backyards. Often, those opposed cite the feared threat of fires or explosions.
Fires in battery energy storage systems, a.k.a. BESS, are quite rare. According to what data is available, the number of fires has stayed relatively flat even as deployment has grown drastically. There were fewer than 10 failure events in the U.S. in 2023, and there have been even fewer so far this year.
But when a fire does happen, experts say it can be quite difficult to put out. In some cases, there’s nothing a community can do other than let the blaze run.
“There’s a lack of consensus. There’s a lot of experts out there providing guidance, and that’s something we’re trying to work on with training throughout the country,” Victoria Hutchinson, an engineer with the Fire Protection Research Foundation, told me. “[It’ll] instill some fear in the meantime we figure out the best approach.”
Information on BESS and wildfires is even less available. Guillermo Rein, a professor of fire science and the editor-in-chief of the journal Fire Technology, told me the matter has not really been studied.
“When I say [BESS are] new, I mean really new,” Rein said. “We hardly know how it works when it gets [on] fire and we don’t have many technologies that are proven to work. We have technologies that we wish will work, but proven technologies that work are very rare. That means we have a new hazard we are struggling to understand and in the meantime, we don’t know how to protect against it.”
Los Angeles County approved Acton’s first battery storage system — Humidor, a 300 megawatt project by Hecate Energy — last summer through an expedited “ministerial” process, the local equivalent of a “categorical exclusion” under the National Environmental Policy Act. Ministerial reviews and categorical exclusions are used by regulators to skip the drawn out process of an environmental review because they can reasonably predict a lack of significant impact. Joseph Horvath, a spokesperson for L.A. County Planning, gave me a statement defending the approval and stating BESS projects must meet all local and state zoning and fire codes to receive a ministerial approval.
California had identified the Acton community back in 2021 as a potential site for energy storage to protect against future power shut offs. Acton made sense because it’s close to the SoCal Edison Vincent substation, making it well positioned to connect to the grid. There was also a real sense of urgency: To achieve its goal of 100% carbon-free electricity by 2045, the state estimates it will need to install a projected 52,000 megawatts or more of battery storage. Humidor is the first of what appears to be multiple projects being planned for the area, including two more Hecate facilities according to materials on the company’s website.
Convinced that a battery boom could mix poorly with extreme fire risk, and that the county moved far too fast to approve Humidor, Acton residents sued. The county, they argued, had little reason to conclude the facility would have an insignificant impact on the environment — so few BESS projects have been approved that the county used the standards from a different kind of project — an electrical substation — to draw that conclusion. L.A. County Planning told me they chose this comparison for reasons including the “purpose of BESS and its connection to the larger network for distributive purposes.”
Rein told me that at least when it comes to the fire risk, this isn’t an accurate comparison, and that there’s not actually enough data to claim such a facility would have an insignificant impact. “I would put great efforts into making sure this facility is safe,” he said. “They can’t just say, I met the regulation, I did enough. Because it’s a new hazard.”
Many of those in Acton opposed to the project believe the approval was rushed, and claim that little information was made available to the public as it was going through the county’s process. Furious residents have told county planners that the Acton town council was not notified in advance that an approval was on its way. They testified before the county board of supervisors that Hecate held only a single public meeting to discuss what it intended to build, with little notice given to potentially concerned citizens.
In my experience as a journalist reporting on large energy projects with serious community impacts, transparency is key to getting local buy-in to build a project. For years I covered the mining industry, where innumerable decades of toxic waste spills and labor scandals have forced companies to really innovate and spend serious dough on obtaining “social license to operate,” a term developers and investors use to describe acceptance to a company’s business practices.
This, of course, differs from the YIMBY school of thought that companies and governments should eschew frustrated municipalities to pursue the overriding net good of climate action. There are certainly merits to this argument, especially when it comes to communities that won’t take yes for an answer, and we’ll be exploring case studies supporting that view in future editions of The Fight.
I’m on the fence about whether Acton is one of those cases, though. Ayer, an environmental engineer by trade, told me she supports decarbonization and wants to see climate action happen. She just wants to feel assured the technology is safe.
If it wasn’t a lithium-ion battery storage facility “I would feel comfortable,” she said. “We will shoulder some of the weight. But it isn’t right that we shoulder all of the weight.”
When I tried to talk to Hecate about Acton’s wildfire concerns and how the company had engaged with the community, a company spokesperson, Bobby Howard, declined to make anyone available for an interview citing “ongoing litigation related to the subject.” Howard provided a factbook that said only that Humidor would “meet or exceed” local and state fire codes — without specifying which codes — and detailed some of the outreach the company did, including the public meeting as well as mailers to “thousands of individuals throughout the greater Los Angeles area, including civically engaged individuals throughout Acton.”
Howard declined to answer questions requesting more information about the company’s public outreach and wildfire planning. He did tell the Los Angeles Times earlier this year that Humidor would have “seismic bracing, safety zones around the perimeter, substantial setbacks from parcel boundaries, gravel breaks and a masonry wall around the facility.”
Stanford University senior research scholar and legal energy expert Michael Wara explained to me that in cases like these, having buy-in from the community is important to avoiding litigation and social blowback. “That is losing,” Wara said. “You have not served your client if you end up in litigation.”
“Having a process by which people are informed about a project and have an opportunity to provide input is important for buy-in for all kinds of projects related to the energy transition if you want to build in a democratic society,” he said. “Is it really the fire risk the community is concerned about?”
When it comes to the Acton battery fight, it’s the fears of fire that scare me the most, not the fire itself.
I sought reasons to be optimistic about putting battery energy storage in areas like Acton that are prone to wildfire because, well, California is essentially one big fire risk zone. James Campbell, a wildfire policy expert at the Federation of American Scientists, told me that battery energy storage decreases net wildfire risk compared to gas storage tanks and pipelines. “If we consider the whole-climate trade-offs, battery systems are much safer,” he said.
On its end, Hecate claimed in a letter to the L.A. County Board of Supervisors that a BESS fire has never traveled off-site, and that because the fires are fueled by flammable gasses, there is minimal risk of embers traveling elsewhere and igniting grass or bushes. The company pointed me to this letter when I reached out for comment.
“Nothing about fire risk mitigation is about certainty. It’s more, risk mitigation and fire is kind of like wearing a seatbelt,” Wara told me. “If you’re going 120 miles an hour down the highway and you get in a high-speed collision, your seatbelt will not save you. [But] there’s rapid advances in how these systems work.”
In the end, he added, meeting California’s carbon emissions targets will “probably mean building somewhere that there is non-trivial wildfire risk.”
What’s happening to offshore wind should be a cautionary tale for developers considering whether sinking time and money into community relations is really worth it: Last year, coastal fishermen and beach town mayors in New Jersey joined forces with fossil fuel funding and right-wing agitators to foment a conspiracy-infused campaign against offshore wind that has truly rattled the future of the industry.
Part of that offshore wind backlash grew out of New Jersey Republicans in Congress using the pulpit of their offices and filing amendments to legislation. As Garcia takes up Acton’s cause, I do wonder whether battery energy storage might be next. November’s election makes it less likely his language hindering expedited approvals for BESS projects will make it into the final funding bill, and Garcia’s office did not respond to requests to discuss its prospects.
But regardless, it’s an ember that could become a fire of its own.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.
2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.
3. Pulaski County, Arkansas – Entergy has dropped the lawsuit it filed against an Arkansas newspaper over the publication of a power deal with Google.
4. Darlington County, South Carolina – We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a focus on a GOP-leaning county rejecting a renewables moratorium.
A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.
I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.
Let’s start with the data center dividend proposal. Walk my readers through it.
Data center dividends came from the idea that, ideally in the AI revolution, we want all Americans to benefit. Especially rural Americans. You look at the landscape today, the majority of AI data centers are being built in rural America. It’s critical they’ll benefit from the massive wealth AI will unlock.
There’s lots of ways to make that happen. People point to the jobs AI data centers will build out, for example. But with data center dividends, we take the logic of the Alaska Permanent Fund and we apply it to America’s rural counties, which are sitting on a proverbial gold mine right now but lack any kind of public mechanism allowing them to benefit from that in a maximal way.
If you look at the tax revenue these data centers create, which is astronomical, how do we distribute this tax revenue in a way where it has the most tangible impact on the families living there? We believe data center dividends are the best way to do that – after allocating money for schools, public safety, and infrastructure, it allows these counties with tens of millions of dollars left over to distribute them as they see fit. They should distribute that money to the men and women who make those data centers happen in the first place.
The most effective form of a dividend would take a direct payment: a cash payment, a physical check, a direct deposit. Or the form of credits paying back property taxes, utility bills, an endowment for scholarships. There’s a number of different forms this can take.
Hopefully this gets the conversation going about how we can make these work for everybody.
Who do you want to see set up this dividend mechanism? How’s your approach to implementation?
The report is addressed to county commissioners. I’m thinking of commissioners who represent both sides of the political spectrum facing this huge backlash. Many of them want to do good by their communities and their voters, even if it means doing a data center, in places where it’s difficult to explain right now. Dividends make this indisputably clear.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of an enterprising county commissioner who sees the merits in the data center buildout and wants to break out of the political storm. It’s important to note data centers can be a huge economic boon for communities, in ways that can impact lives positively.
Have any communities – counties, as you noted – taken this idea up yet? Are there any models for this proposal?
The best analogue is West Feliciana, Louisiana, which is the case study we feature. West Feliciana made an agreement with a data center developer where in lieu of taxes, they make direct payments of about $90 million a year to the parish. That triples the community’s tax budget every year. It leaves ample room not only for essential services but dividends afterwards. Louisiana then passed a law – Act 434 – that allowed West Feliciana to remit some of those payments to residents as a tax credit. This bill first provided the opportunity for the parish to even remit those payments as cash, but it was changed in the legislature to make it a credit. That’s the closest we’ve gotten so far.
As far as reaching out to individual counties, we’re a think tank. We put ideas into the universe. We haven’t had anyone reach out to us since the publication of the report so far but we’re hoping they will.
Your report does lay out how there’s a bottleneck in development and this could help with easing it. Do you see an impetus to put ideas like the dividend out there right now, in light of the increased data center scrutiny in this year’s midterms?
Our publication is irrespective of the midterms. But it is tied to the fact that a bottleneck facing the data center buildout includes it becoming a politicized issue. We’re of the belief these projects shouldn't be political at all. One way to break through the noise is by showing how they can benefit those involved in construction and residents who live there. Data centers are critical infrastructure; other forms of critical infrastructure aren’t being politicized. Our efforts are to demonstrate how these shouldn’t be political.
When it comes to the future of AI data center regulation, this proposal is obviously geared towards incentivizing a resolution to the bottleneck through using resources produced from data centers – namely, new investment.
Where does your organization stand on the increased push for environmental or siting regulation on AI data centers?
I’m not familiar with what you might be referring to there.
I mean, there’s all kinds of proposals at the federal level and in states for everything from being required to pay for infrastructure upgrades to being required to use closed-loop cooling to siting restrictions, like temporary moratoria.
What I’m asking is, what else do you as an organization believe when it comes to regulating AI data center development at the federal level? State level?
We believe data centers should work for the communities where they’re being built. That’s important. So the concept of BYOP – Bring Your Own Power – we very much support that idea. We think the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is a great proposal because ultimately we want data centers, with them being critical infrastructure, to not only strengthen our national security but strengthen the communities where they’re being built.
Some states are rejecting data centers. We think that’s a mistake because it's something that’ll ultimately short-change the people who live there. For the states that do decide to build data centers, it's up to them what regulations make data centers more sustainable over time.
There’s increased public discussion for policy on AI development – as an organization, do you see any role in the federal government making policy here with a national data center law?
We think AI will be key to America’s prosperity over the long-term. We have concerns about the regulation of open-source artificial intelligence; bitcoin is a form of open-source software and open-source money. We believe intelligence should be something available to all Americans. That’s our concern with talk about regulating AI right now, it feels like a ploy for regulatory capture.
But what about national policy on AI data centers? Does your think tank support the national legislature doing a federal data center bill or is that something best for localities or states?
It depends on the bill. Are you talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ national moratorium?
The administration told a federal court that it has a “new analytical methodology,” hence the continued delays.
A federal judge ruled in early August that the Trump administration’s freeze on vertical height clearances for wind turbines was likely illegal. More than a month later nearly all of the wind energy projects remain on pause, as federal officials add new red tape that industry representatives say runs afoul of the court’s edict.
Let’s catch-up quickly on the American wind sector’s existential dilemma: the federal government has control over airspace higher than 200 feet from the ground and wind farm turbines essentially always enter that sphere of control. For at least a year and a half, the Trump administration through the Department of Defense and the Federal Aviation Administration has slowly gummed up what industry and former government officials have said was once a rote, benign bureaucratic process for ensuring turbine rotation didn’t interfere with flight patterns or radar at nearby airports.
So, Trump is delaying key approvals even for wind projects on private land, a worst-case scenario for the industry during his presidency. With support from their respective trade groups, many project developers sued and in August won a preliminary injunction against this de-facto national wind energy freeze. The court ruling said federal law laid out clear deadlines for completing these airspace reviews and the administration was willfully missing them.
“[In] light of DoD’s review freeze that started a year ago and still has no end in sight, the wind developers would naturally look to the same deadlines for relief,” U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut wrote, stating the administration’s pause violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Immergut also said the Trump administration potentially violated the law by reviewing projects under a new national security “methodology” that was defined by Congress.
But on Thursday, in its first update to the court since the ruling, the Justice Department laid out how essentially all projects remain at a standstill because they were adopting a new kind of comprehensive review process.
The administration claimed that “as a matter of policy” it had “resumed processing wind energy project applications,” but it only described a single instance where a company had heard from the military about moving forward. In addition, that company as well as all others affected by the freeze would still face a “new analytical methodology” for federal agencies reviewing height clearances for all projects, which appears to fly in the face of the ruling. The Justice Department did not provide any more detail about the methodology in its status update to the court.
Nicole Hughes, executive director of lead plaintiff Renewable Northwest, asserted in an interview Tuesday that the agency isn’t complying with the court order. “It appears to me they’re still stalling,” Hughes told me, adding the federal government’s reluctance to proceed is creating “a pretty high risk” for developers of any new wind projects in the United States. She said if nothing changes in the short term, they’re going to “have to go back to the judge and ask for further clarification as to what it means to comply with this order.”
“The lack of compliance by the administration does put into question the credibility [of the courts] and what pieces hold their feet to the fire? What remedies do we have? There’s never been a time an administration flaunts a judge’s orders the way the administration is.”
The Justice Department status update described a multitude of wind energy projects impacted by the freeze. At least 30 projects apparently already signed deals proposed by the military to mitigate radar impacts and were awaiting a counter-signature from the Department of Defense (which Trump calls the Department of War or DoW). Those previous legal agreements are now at risk of being thrown out, according to the Justice Department filing. The new pathway forward for them apparently is: “DoW will either (i) provide a notice that the project presents an unacceptable risk to national security, (ii) re-engage in negotiations with the developer to attempt to ameliorate any unacceptable risks, or (iii) circulate to the project proponent [a] new model mitigation agreement.”
At least 110 projects were in the middle of discussions with the federal government about mitigating airspace impacts when the injunction came down, according to the DOJ filing, which says none of them have heard from officials since the injunction. “As of this filing, developer re-engagements have yet to begin because such discussions need to be informed by the analytical results. Given the number of projects in this category, DoW has been assessing how to resume review and engagement with the developers.”
The DOJ said another 50 projects awaiting initial meetings with the federal government about airspace risk will begin once the administration “finishes with those” 110 projects that were in the middle of the process. That waiting list will also include another at least 40 projects the Justice Department said received “presumed risk” airspace notices from the federal government.
We’ve seen the Trump administration use extralegal means to delay wind energy before, but never to this extent or after a judge ruled against them. The Interior Department had been freezing wind and solar projects on federal lands under a policy requiring Secretary Doug Burgum sign off on routine approvals, but those typical government processes seem like they’ve resumed after a different federal court ruling enjoining that policy.
American Clean Power, the largest utility-scale solar and wind energy trade group, declined to comment. The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment.